5 ms·

That's pretty sad, I remember seeing the Lenna image 20ish years ago when I first looked into computer vision, I was a kid back then and I dreamed of one day pu

That's pretty sad, I remember seeing the Lenna image 20ish years ago when I first looked into computer vision, I was a kid back then and I dreamed of one day publishing a paper with this image in it (that's how ubiquitous it was, to me it was the incarnation of CV). I used it often on my website just a few years ago to demonstrate CV projects. I don't find it sexist, I'll keep using it.

jhardy54 6y ago
> I don't find it sexist, I'll keep using it. How do women in your industry feel about it?
jsheard 6y ago
Even if you overlook the sexism angle, it's always been legally dubious since Playboy owns the copyright and never gave permission for it to be used by researchers. Plus the canonical 1970s-era digitization is low resolution and lacking in detail compared to modern digital photography. Take all three factors together and it's clearly time to move on.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago
  Somehow I doubt Playboy cares about a cropped image that's been used everywhere for the past 50 years, as evidenced by their lack of action for 50 years. If the image is too low resolution to showcase your work, you would not use it in the first place. The resolution was good enough to showcase a whole range of state of the art work I was reproducing 5 years ago though.
  - jsheard 6y ago
    I doubt Playboy cares either, but given the choice between "Playboy could sue us but probably won't" and "just stop using that old porn photo already" I can see why journals legal counsel would push for the latter.
    - Lammy 6y ago
      'The editorial in the January 1992 issue of Optical Engineering (v. 31 no. 1) details how Playboy has finally caught on to the fact that their copyright on Lena Sjooblom's photo is being widely infringed. However Wired mentioned that: "Although Playboy is notorious for cracking down on illegal uses of its images, it has decided to overlook the widespread distribution of this particular centerfold".' '"We decided we should exploit this," a Playboy rep said told Wired in 1997, "because it is a phenomenon."'
tombert 6y ago
I understand that it is a pretty-ok image for playing with image processing stuff, but do you not think that using literal porn might breed a bad atmosphere in a professional environment? I'm definitely guilty of using the image, I still occasionally use it on my home computer if I'm playing with image processing stuff, but I purposefully do not use it for anything that any other human is likely to see, since I don't want to be the reason to make someone feel unwelcome in the tech space.
neilv 6y ago
I'd like to ask you to reconsider, and here's why... I imagine that the image was originally used with a sense of whimsy, with no harm intended, and then it was adopted into the culture of some fields, and given new meaning there within those fields, however we now know (at least when it's pointed out) that it does send some very unwelcoming messages, which affects both the fields and broader society. I think one of the unwelcoming messages that would be sent by continuing to use the image is: knowing that it's associated with a long history of serious exclusion and unfairness, were we to use the image anyway, that would say we care more about the field's old in-joke, than we care about injustices and about being welcoming to everyone interested in the field. This seems like one of those situations in which we don't realize something is a problem, but once we realize it (maybe someone has to mention it, and we look into it), then we do what we can to correct it. In the most limited interpretation of the problem, the correction might be as simple as using a different image in our examples, and it's perhaps the very least one can do.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago
  I've considered it carefully. I didn't expand on it because I know my opinion is usually not welcome (eh) here and also there is no way to come out looking good when arguing with people who position themselves as fighting against prejudice even if you care about social issues and it's exhausting. As you say, it's the most limited interpretation of the problem. It's to the level of the master-branch or black-list/white-list controversies. I believe sexists are unwelcoming (to say the least), and sexism breeds a toxic work environment. I'm sure this image has been used by sexists, as has every resource in every field up to this day. I do not believe this image is sexist or unwelcoming nor that changing it will do anything to improve the work environment for women in tech. I think these requests are overall harmful: They're a rhetorical mirage that does nothing to help the people they claim to stand for while disenfranchising normal people in the process by reframing them as bigots. They are part of a broader pattern of ideologically motivated battlegrounds in (SV) tech and serve only to classify people as allies or enemies. You yourself frame it as dichotomy between people who care about injustices and people who care more about preserving an old joke (clearly assholes if they put a joke over the inclusion of their colleagues). I'd ask you to consider that people who share your beliefs do not have a monopoly on kindness and mercy and the human heart, and to consider furthermore, given the polarization of the American political discourse, whether this is the right way to build a welcoming environment. I say all this from personal experience, as a minority who's unlucky enough to have the most privileged people on earth fight for him (but not really) one well-meaning frivolity at a time. I say unlucky because in the process every space for us online has been hijacked and paradoxically I have less of a voice than before and meanwhile everything is still pretty shit to be honest.

jhardy54 6y ago

> I don't find it sexist, I'll keep using it. How do women in your industry feel about it?

jsheard 6y ago

Even if you overlook the sexism angle, it's always been legally dubious since Playboy owns the copyright and never gave permission for it to be used by researchers. Plus the canonical 1970s-era digitization is low resolution and lacking in detail compared to modern digital photography. Take all three factors together and it's clearly time to move on.

ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago
Somehow I doubt Playboy cares about a cropped image that's been used everywhere for the past 50 years, as evidenced by their lack of action for 50 years. If the image is too low resolution to showcase your work, you would not use it in the first place. The resolution was good enough to showcase a whole range of state of the art work I was reproducing 5 years ago though.
- jsheard 6y ago
  I doubt Playboy cares either, but given the choice between "Playboy could sue us but probably won't" and "just stop using that old porn photo already" I can see why journals legal counsel would push for the latter.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    'The editorial in the January 1992 issue of Optical Engineering (v. 31 no. 1) details how Playboy has finally caught on to the fact that their copyright on Lena Sjooblom's photo is being widely infringed. However Wired mentioned that: "Although Playboy is notorious for cracking down on illegal uses of its images, it has decided to overlook the widespread distribution of this particular centerfold".' '"We decided we should exploit this," a Playboy rep said told Wired in 1997, "because it is a phenomenon."'

tombert 6y ago

I understand that it is a pretty-ok image for playing with image processing stuff, but do you not think that using literal porn might breed a bad atmosphere in a professional environment? I'm definitely guilty of using the image, I still occasionally use it on my home computer if I'm playing with image processing stuff, but I purposefully do not use it for anything that any other human is likely to see, since I don't want to be the reason to make someone feel unwelcome in the tech space.

neilv 6y ago

I'd like to ask you to reconsider, and here's why... I imagine that the image was originally used with a sense of whimsy, with no harm intended, and then it was adopted into the culture of some fields, and given new meaning there within those fields, however we now know (at least when it's pointed out) that it does send some very unwelcoming messages, which affects both the fields and broader society. I think one of the unwelcoming messages that would be sent by continuing to use the image is: knowing that it's associated with a long history of serious exclusion and unfairness, were we to use the image anyway, that would say we care more about the field's old in-joke, than we care about injustices and about being welcoming to everyone interested in the field. This seems like one of those situations in which we don't realize something is a problem, but once we realize it (maybe someone has to mention it, and we look into it), then we do what we can to correct it. In the most limited interpretation of the problem, the correction might be as simple as using a different image in our examples, and it's perhaps the very least one can do.

ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago
I've considered it carefully. I didn't expand on it because I know my opinion is usually not welcome (eh) here and also there is no way to come out looking good when arguing with people who position themselves as fighting against prejudice even if you care about social issues and it's exhausting. As you say, it's the most limited interpretation of the problem. It's to the level of the master-branch or black-list/white-list controversies. I believe sexists are unwelcoming (to say the least), and sexism breeds a toxic work environment. I'm sure this image has been used by sexists, as has every resource in every field up to this day. I do not believe this image is sexist or unwelcoming nor that changing it will do anything to improve the work environment for women in tech. I think these requests are overall harmful: They're a rhetorical mirage that does nothing to help the people they claim to stand for while disenfranchising normal people in the process by reframing them as bigots. They are part of a broader pattern of ideologically motivated battlegrounds in (SV) tech and serve only to classify people as allies or enemies. You yourself frame it as dichotomy between people who care about injustices and people who care more about preserving an old joke (clearly assholes if they put a joke over the inclusion of their colleagues). I'd ask you to consider that people who share your beliefs do not have a monopoly on kindness and mercy and the human heart, and to consider furthermore, given the polarization of the American political discourse, whether this is the right way to build a welcoming environment. I say all this from personal experience, as a minority who's unlucky enough to have the most privileged people on earth fight for him (but not really) one well-meaning frivolity at a time. I say unlucky because in the process every space for us online has been hijacked and paradoxically I have less of a voice than before and meanwhile everything is still pretty shit to be honest.